Re: [HACKERS] Deadlock with pg_dump?
| От | Tom Lane |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: [HACKERS] Deadlock with pg_dump? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 16441.1172868905@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: [HACKERS] Deadlock with pg_dump? (Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Deadlock with pg_dump?
|
| Список | pgsql-patches |
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> I can create a global variable to control this, but the new elog level
> seemed cleaner.
What I don't like about the proposed patch is that it's nonorthogonal.
I see no reason to suppose that LOG is the only possible elevel for
which it might be interesting to suppress the STATEMENT: field.
Perhaps the best thing would be to define an additional ereport
auxiliary function, say errprintstmt(bool), that could set a flag
in the current elog stack entry to control suppression of STATEMENT.
This would mean you couldn't determine the behavior when using elog(),
but that's not supposed to be used for user-facing messages anyway.
regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-patches по дате отправления: